Post by williammiller on Sept 27, 2014 12:52:21 GMT -5
Great stuff! A brief comment/suggestion on multiple-target-engagement:
Any ship in the game (during both the 1970s and 1980s periods) that is marked as having a data-link system could (in real life) "see" the radar plot of any other friendly ship that also has a data-link system *and* was is the same formation with it. These ships are thus more likely to 'coordinate' their fire properly against multiple targets than ships either without the data-link or that are not in the same formation. Most navies of the period also had doctrine that was designed to help cope with multiple targets, but frankly in actual practice/combat the doctrines would often fail and many targets would be 'over-engaged' or 'under-engaged'.
In game terms I would recommend the following suggestion which takes into account the limitations of the technology/equipment of the 1970s/80s period and the issues with such doctrines:
Allow the players to assign their AN values to targets as desired; For every 2 AN assigned to a target roll 1d10: If the firing unit has a data-link and the roll is a "8" or less, then the 2 AN remain allocated to that target as normal. If the firing unit does not have a data-link and the roll is a "6" or less, then the 2 AN remain allocated to that target as normal. However, if the roll was greater than the number mentioned in either case, then those 2 AN must be **randomly** re-allocated to ANOTHER target in the same target group.
This generates a 20% 'randomized' engagement rate for data-linked units and a 40% 'randomized' engagement rate for non-data-linked units, which I think are reasonable figures for the period in question; you could change them to whatever values you think are realistic, of course.